(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Community Texts | Project Gutenberg | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Children's Library | Additional Collections
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload
See other formats

Full text of "Mexico-United States Interparliamentary Group : report of the Senate Delegation on the sixteenth meeting, held at Atlanta, Georgia"

1 ■ r 






94th Congress 
2d Session 



COMMITTEE PRINT 



MEXICO-UNITED STATES 
INTERPARLIAMENTARY GROUP 



REPORT OF THE SENATE DELEGATION ON THE 

SIXTEENTH MEETING, HELD AT 

ATLANTA, GEORGIA 



BY 



Senator Mike Mansfield, Chairman 



,//""""», 




AUGUST 1976\ *'■ 



,^,^ Fi 4x 






i^m 



sfr, 



-7 






Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Relations 



75-104 



U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 
WASHINGTON : 1976 



SENATE DELEGATION 

MIKE MANSFIELD, Montana, Chairman 
GALE W. McGEE, Wyoming CHARLES H. PERCY, Illinois 

LEE METCALF, Montana PAUL J. FANNIN, Arizona 

JOSEPH M. MONTOYA, New Mexico PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico 

FLOYD K. HASKELL, Colorado PAUL LAXALT, Nevada 

WALTER D. HUDDLESTON, Kentucky 
ROBERT MORGAN, North Carolina 
JOHN A. DURKIN, New Hampshire 

Robert H. Dockery, Staff Consultant 

(II) 



CONTENTS 



Page 

Letter of Transmittal v 

I. Background 1 

II. Conference program 2 

III. Committee reports 4 

A. Committee I — Political Affairs 4 

B. Committee II — Economic and Social Affairs G 

IV. Joint statement by heads of delegations 14 

Appendixes: 

A. Welcoming statement by the Hon. George Busbee, Governor of 

Georgia 19 

B. Opening plenary session statement by Representative E "Kika" 

de la Garza 21 

C. Closing plenary >e-?ion statement b} T Senator Mike Mansfield 23 

D. Financial statement 25 

(in) 



Digitized by the Internet Archive 
in 2013 



http://archive.org/details/mexistatOOunit 



LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL 

August 13, 1976: 
Hon. James 0. Eastland, 
President Pro Tempore, 
U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. 

Dear Mr. President: In accordance with Public Law 86-420, 
approved April 9, 1960, I am transmitting herewith a report on the 
16th meeting of the Mexico-United States Interparliamentary" Group, 
which was held in Atlanta, Georgia, and Denver, Colorado, Februarv 
25-29, 1976. 

Once again it was my pleasure to serve as Chairman of the Senate 
delegation. This is an honor which has been bestowed on me for a 
number of years and it is one which I have thoroughly enjoyed. With 
my retirement from the Senate at the end of this year, I shall surely 
miss participating in these annual conferences. 

As I have said before, the United States has no better friend in the 
world than Mexico. I am proud that our annual interparliamentary 
conferences with Mexico shall forever stand as a glowing testament 
to that friendship. 
Sincerely, 

Mike Mansfield, 
Chairman, Senate Delegation. 

(V) 



SIXTEENTH MEXICO-UNITED STATES 
INTERPARLIAMENTARY CONFERENCE 

I. Background 

United States participation in annual parliamentary conferences 
with Mexico was authorized by Public Law 86-420, approved April 9, 

1960. The first such conference was held in Guadalajara in February, 

1961. Subsequent conferences have been held in the United States in 
even-numbered years and in Mexico in odd-numbered }~ears. 

The United States delegates attending the 16th Conference, which 
was held in Atlanta, Georgia, February 26-27, 1976, were: 

From the Senate 

Mike Mansfield of Montana, Chairman. 
Joseph M. Montoya of New Mexico. 
Robert Morgan of North Carolina. 
John A. Durkin of New Hampshire. 

From the House of Representatives 

E (Kika) de la Garza of Texas, Chairman. 
Lester L. Wolff of New York. 
Jerome A. Ambro of New York. 
Manuel Lujan, Jr., of New Mexico. 
John H. Rousselot of California. 
Clair W. Burgener of California. 
Robert J. Lagomarsino of California. 
Benjamin A. Gilman of New York. 

Senator Enrique Olivares Santana served as Chairman of the 
Mexican delegation. Deputy Luis Danton Rodriguez was Co-Chair- 
man of the Mexican delegation. The other Mexican delegates were: 

From the Senate 

Ramon Alcala Ferrera of Campeche. 
Yiftor Manzanilla SchafTer of Yucatan. 
Aurora Ruvaleaba Gutierrez of Colima. 
Enrique Gonzalez Pedrero of Tabasco. 
( ^irlos Perez Camara. 
Francisco Aguilar Hernandez of Morelos. 
Guillermo Morales Blumenkron of Puebla. 
Ignacio Maciel Salcedo of Jalisco. 
Edgar Robledo Santiago of Chiapas. 
German Corona del Rosal of Hidalgo. 
Gilberto Suarez Torres of Oaxaca. 
Jo<e Bruno del Rio (Alternate). 
Yicente Juarez Carro (Alternate). 

(1) 



From the Chamber of Deputies 

Alejandro Sobarzo Loaiza of Sonora. 

Antonio Martinez Baez of Michaocan. 

Rogelio Garcia Gonzalez of Veracruz. 

Francisco Javier Gutierrez Villarreal of Nuevo Leon. 

Jose de Jesus Martinez Gil of the Federal District. 

Luis Adolfo Santibanez Belmont of the Federal District. 

Mario Ruiz de Chavez Garcia of the State of Mexico. 

Pedro Guillen Castanon of Chiapas. 

Antonio Carrillo Huacuja of Baja California. 

Teodoro Carrasco Palacios of Oaxaca. 

Jose Milrat (alternate). 

II. Conference Program 

The Mexican delegation arrived at Andrews Air Force Base at 
2:00 P.M., February 25, where it was received by members of the 
United States delegation. Both delegations then proceeded directly 
to the White House, where President Ford delivered a brief welcoming 
address following an informal reception. At 4 :30 P.M. that same after- 
noon, both delegations flew to Dobbins Air Force Base, Atlanta, 
Georgia, arriving at approximately 6:00 P.M., and proceeded im- 
mediately to the Regency Hyatt Hotel in downtown Atlanta, where 
the official conference sessions took place. 

The opening plenary session of the Conference was held the follow- 
ing morning in the Falcon Room of the Regency Hyatt Hotel. This 
session included a welcoming address by the Honorable George 
Busbee, Governor of Georgia, and introductory remarks by Hon. 
E. (Kika) de la Garza, Acting Chairman of the House delegation and 
Deputy Rodriguez, Co-Chairman of the Mexican delegation. Immedi- 
ately thereafter, the delegates proceeded to their respective commit- 
tee meetings, which were held throughout the remainder of the day. 
On the morning of February 27, the delegates finished their committee 
work and in the afternoon they attended the closing session of the 
Conference which included closing remarks by the Hon. Mike Mans- 
field, Chairman of the Senate delegation, and Senator Enrique Olivares 
Santana, Chairman of the Mexican delegation. That evening, delegates 
attended a dinner at the Fairmont Hotel in Atlanta which was followed 
by a special Bicentennial performance. 

Both delegations departed Dobbins Air Force Base early the next 
morning and arrived at Buckly National Guard Field, Denver, 
Colorado, at 11:00 A.M. After an informal brunch at the Brown 
Palace Hotel in downtown Denver, members of both delegations had 
the opportunity to take a bus trip to Vail which was climaxed by a 
final dinner at the Eaglet Nest restaurant. 

At 2:00 P.M. on February 29, members of the United States dele- 
gations departed Buckh^ Field for their return to Washington, arriving 
at Andrews Air Force Base at approximately 6:00 P.M. 

The work of the Conference was organized in two Committees which 
dealt with the following agenda items : 



A. Committee I — Political Affairs 

1. Bilateral Relations. 

2. Views on the United Nations. 

3. Changes in the Organization of American States. 

(a) Amendments to the Rio Treat} r . 

4. Efforts to Control Traffic in Narcotics. 

5. Law of the Sea. 

(a) Exclusive Economic Zones. 

6. Protection of Human Rights. 

7. Democracy in the Western Hemisphere. 

B. Committee II — Economic and Social Affairs 

1. Inflation and Development. 

(a) Charter of Economic Rights and Duties of States. 

2. Trade, Tourism, and the Balance-of-Payments. 

3. Implementation of the Trade Reform Act of 1974. 

4. Integration and Regional Economic Development. 

5. Migratory Workers and Illegal Aliens. 

6. Education, Science and Culture. 

The Mexico-United States Interparliamentary Conferences do not 
take votes or pass resolutions, but in most years the chiefs of delega- 
tions have issued a joint statement. The statement issued in Atlanta 
this year is printed elsewhere in this report, as are the reports on the 
discussions held in each of the two committees. 

There follows the rules of procedure adopted annually by the 
Conference : 

1. The United States co-chairman will designate a United States 
delegate to serve as chairman of each committee. 

2. Each delegation will name a delegate for each committee to 
serve as official rapporteurs. 

3. In each committee the Mexican rapporteur and the United 
States rapporteur will prepare a summary of the principal points 
and arguments made by the delegates of his country in that com- 
mittee. Each summary will be included in the record of the meetings. 

4. All meetings will start at the designated hour regardless of the 
number of delegates present. If the chairman is not present, a delegate 
designated by the chairman will call the meeting to order. 

5. To assure maximum participation the chairman will recognize 
alternately members of each delegation in the order in which they 
indicate a desire to speak. 

6. In order that as many delegates as wish may participate, a 
delegate may not speak for more than 10 minutes until each delegate 
who wishes to speak has had his opportunity. 

7. A delegate who has been recognized shall not be called to order 
or interrupted during the time allotted him. 

8. A delegate may participate in the discussion of a committee 
other than the one to which he is assigned in the same manner as a 
delegate assigned to the committee. 

9. No votes will be taken. 

10. It will be in the discretion of the chairman to determine that a 
subject has been discussed sufficiently and to recommend proceeding 
to the next subject. 



75-104— 7( 



11. The opening and concluding plenary sessions will be open to the 
press and the public, and a stenographic record will be made. All 
committee sessions will be limited to the delegates and to staff at- 
tached to each of the two delegations. In order to assure the maximum 
expression of views, it is understood that discussions in the committees 
will be considered as private and not for publication. 

12. It is requested that delegates and staff wear their badges when 
attending meetings and other functions. 

III. Committee Reports 

A. COMMITTEE I POLITICAL AFFAIRS 

The United States members of the Political Affairs Committee 
were Senators Mansfield and Durkin and Representatives de la Garza 
(Chairman), Wolff, Ambro, Burgener and Gilman. 

The committee's deliberations encompassed the seven agenda 
items assigned to it, beginning with an overview of bilateral relations 
between the United States and Mexico. On this subject, there was 
virtualty complete agreement that, on a one-to-one basis, Mexico- 
United States relations are "good" if not excellent. On a broader 
basis, however, there are considerable differences because, as a mem- 
ber of the Mexican delegation observed, the United States has global 
interests, political, economic and military, and Mexico does not. 

A member of the United States delegation commented in response 
that, though Mexico's foreign policy interests may not be as broadly 
gaged as those of the United States, Mexico is an acknowledged leader 
of the Third World. 

The committee then turned its attention to the next agenda item, 
the status of the United Nations. Members of the United States 
delegation expressed their concern that the U.N. Charter was being 
undermined and that disruptive practices and procedures engaged in 
by some could well lead to the destruction of the United Nations as 
an institution designed to safeguard world peace and security. A 
spokesman for the Mexican delegation pointed out that the developing 
countries have control of the United Nations and that it is incumbent 
on all nations which believe in democratic principles to accept their 
application in the functioning of the United Nations. 

In the course of discussing this issue, the Mexican delegation was 
asked about Cuba's intervention in Angola. A member of the Mexican 
delegation responded by stating that the principle of non-intervention 
serves as the foundation of Mexican foreign policy and that accord- 
ingly, Mexico opposes intervention in the internal affairs of one country 
by another. 

The interrelated issues of the Organization of American States and 
proposed amendments to the Rio Treaty were reviewed in detail by 
a member of the Mexican delegation. This review made it clear that 
within the Hemisphere there are considerable differences of opinion 
on such matters as ideological pluralism, sovereignty over natural 
resources and collective economic security. For example, Mexico is a 
strong supporter of the idea that collective economic security is vital 
to the peace and well being of the Hemisphere. The United States on 
the other hand has, in connection with the proposed amendments to 
the Rio Treaty, expressed certain reservations on this issue. As for 



5 

the Treaty itself, Mexico does not regard it as a military pact but 
rather as an agreement which creates an alliance for cooperation. 

A member of the United States delegation summarized his views 
on the OAS and the U.N. by saying that both organizations need a 
lot of revision. 

The committee turned its attention next to cooperative efforts 
between the United States and Mexico to control traffic in narcotic 
drugs. Both delegations expressed the view that major efforts are 
being made by Mexican and United States officials charged with 
interdicting the flow and eliminating the supply of illicit narcotics. 
Similarly, both delegations praised President Echeverria's proposal 
calling for the establishment of parallel national commissions to 
oversee the efforts being made to curtail drug traffic between the 
United States and Mexico. Despite these efforts, the two delegations 
also agreed that more would have to be done by both countries in 
order to reduce the impact and magnitude of the problem. 

The committee's consideration of the law of the sea issue focused 
on (1) efforts within the United Nations to reach an international 
consensus on a comprehensive law of the sea agreement and (2) 
national legislation creating or establishing 200-mile exclusive fishery 
and/or economic zones. Both delegations expressed the hope that the 
United Nations committee on the law of the sea would be able to 
finish its work this year by reaching agreement on all outstanding 
law of the sea issues, including the breadth of the territorial sea, 
transit through straits, conservation and protection of living resources 
and the marine environment and exploration and exploitation of 
deep-seabed areas. 

A member of the Mexican delegation reported on his country's 
decision to create a 200-mile exclusive economic zone. It was pointed 
out that, while the Mexican Government will exercise sovereignty 
with respect to exploration and exploitation within the zone, it would 
be a serious mistake to equate the zone with an extension of the 
territorial sea. Mexico views its offshore economic zone as a means of 
enhancing national development efforts. Members of the United 
States delegation agreed that the United States is moving in the 
direction of accepting the exclusive economic zone concept, as evi- 
denced by legislation in Congress calling for the creation of a 200-mile 
fishery zone. However, there was disagreement among the members of 
the U.S. delegation on the desirability of such a zone. 

The subject of human rights brought forth expressions of concern 
about the treatment of Americans in jail in Mexico and the detention 
of Mexican aliens in the United States. It was agreed that every 
country has a clear-cut responsibility to protect fundamental human 
rights and that no nation has a monopoly on the desire to safeguard 
individual rights and freedoms. Both delegations agreed that all 
nations can do better in implementing the U.N. Declaration on 
Human Rights. 

The committee completed its work with a brief but intense discus- 
sion on democracy in the Western Hemisphere and democratic 
institutions in general. The Committee's views on these is-ucs are 
summarized in the Joint Statement: 



6 

Both delegations agreed thai democracy and the func- 
tioning of democratic institutions are the best social and 
political means to guarantee the freedom and rights of man, 
since they constitute the most effective way to halt the 
advance of totalitarianism. 

Similarly, both delegations expressed their firm hope for the re- 
establishment of representative democracy and democratic institu- 
tions in those countries where they have been suppressed. 

B. COMMITTEE II ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL AFFAIRS 

The United States members of the Economic and Social Affairs 
Committee were Senators Montoya (Chairman) and Morgan and 
Representatives Lujan, Rousselot and Lagomarsino. 

The six agenda topics assigned to the Committee were discussed 
-at considerable length by all delegates who participated in the meet- 
ings. A summary of the highlights of these discussions follows. 

Inflation and Development 

The meeting opened with comments by the Mexican Chairman* 
about the effects of worldwide inflation on Mexico's economy. 

The Chairman noted that price increases in other countries, partic- 
ularly in the United States, have had an adverse effect on Mexico's 
balance of payments. (Mexico, it was pointed out, was the fourth 
largest recipient of U.S. exports.) While the developed countries could 
absorb the effects of a recession, he observed, the developing countries 
could not. Mexico particularly feared the possibility of a worldwide 
depre^ion which could bring massive unemployment. Mexico has 
proposed that all countries achieve a more equitable international 
economic system and a stable world economy as set forth in the Char- 
ter of Economic Rights and Duties of States (discussed below) ; it 
also recommended the conclusion of long-term multilateral commodity 
agreements which would take both producers' and consumers' interests 
into account. 

The Mexican Chairman then summarized some of the economic 
achievements Mexico had realized over the past five years. These 
included: (a) the irrigation of one million hectares of land, increased 
fertilization which had produced a surplus in beans and rice, and a re- 
duction of the corn deficit by 10% of consumption, (b) the doubling of 
petroleum production to more than 830,000 barrels per day, and (c) 
the inclusion of approximately 30% of the total population in the 
educational system and the construction of 60,000 public housing 
units. 

A United States delegate responded to these remarks by noting that 
the United States had an equivalent interest in improving economic 
conditions throughout the world and in raising the standard of liv- 
ing. The United States, he pointed out, had not been as fortunate as 
Mexico in making recent oil strikes and its dependency on foreign 
sources of petroleum products had, if anything, increased during 
1974-75. This dependency had, in fact, heightened U.S. awareness of 
the interdependence of the world's economies, not only within the 

♦The Mexican Chairman of Committee II also served as co-chairman of the Mexican 
delegation. Further references in this section to the respective "Chairmen" are meant to 
apply to Committee II exclusively. 



Western Hemisphere but in other regions. The United States was 
committed to helping the developing nations establish and main- 
tain world markets for their products, as evidenced by the major 
U.S. contribution to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) . 

Attention was called to Secretary Kissinger's September 1, 1975 
address to the Seventh Special Session of the United Nations General 
Assembly in which proposals were advanced to: 

Improve developing countries' access to capital markets, to 
adapt new technology to specific development needs; 

Improve the opportunities in the world trading system so that 
LDC's [Less Developed Countries] can "make their way by 
earnings instead of aid"; 

Improve conditions of trade and investment in key commodities 
on which the LDC's depend ; 

Safeguard against economic shocks to which the LDC's are 
particularly vulnerable ; and 

Address the needs of the poorest countries, which are most 
affected by current economic conditions. 
Within the context of bilateral exchange of goods and services, a 
United States delegate suggested the possibility of negotiating long- 
term agreements which would include crude oil exports to the United 
States in exchange for firm commitments on the importation of certain 
key Mexican products. In response to this suggestion, a Mexican 
delegate noted that although recent discoveries of oil deposits in South- 
eastern Mexico were regarded as significant, they were not on the scale 
of the "Middle East". Mexico hoped, however, to be in a portion to 
make progressively greater exports of crude oil in the future. 

Considerable discussion was devoted to recent developments in 
Mexico's Border Industry Program. This was a program initiated by 
Mexico in 1965 as a means of alleviating the chronic high unemploy- 
ment in the Mexican cities on the U.S. border. As of January 1975, 
there were almost 550 plants employing some 85,000 persons, but 
owing to the U.S. economic slowdown, reduced consumer demand 
in the U.S. and increased wages and operating costs i i Mexico, border 
industries had declined during this past year. 

A Mexican delegate indicated that it was the official Mexican posi- 
tion that border factories and assembly plants in Mexico did not 
generate unemployment in the United States. A United States dele- 
gate responded that that had also been the conclusion of those agencies 
of the United States Government which had investigated the matter. 
For instance, in 1969, former President Nixon had asked the U.S. 
Tariff Commission to investigate the impact of items 806.30 and S07.00 
on the U.S. economy. The Commission concluded that repeal of these 
two items "would not markedly reduce the volume of imports of the 
articles that now enter the U.S. under these provisions. Rather, these 
articles would continue to be supplied from abroad . . . but in many 
cases with fewer or no U.S. components . . ." 

In other words, as a United States delegate pointed out, the United 
States officially favored the continuance of the border industry (or 
"twin plants") program. The decrease in the level of activity during 
1975 as compared with 1974 was based on: (a) decreased demand in 
the U.S. as a result of the recession and (b) higher costs in Mexico. 
It was not the result of a conscious retrenchment policy on the part 
of the U.S. Government. 



8 

CHARTER OF ECONOMIC RIGHTS OF DUTIES OF STATES 

In his opening statement, the Mexican Chairman observed that the 
Charter proposal, while originally an initiative of President Luis 
Echeverria, had subsequently been adopted by the United Nations 
General Assembly on December 12, 1974. In essence it was a proposal 
to remove the concept of economic cooperation from the area of 
good-will and to establish it in the field of international law. The 
government of Mexico considered the Charter to be a declaration of 
human lights for all men as well as all nations. To agree to its spirit 
represented progress; at the same time, Mexico realized that imple- 
mentation of this idea would take time. 

In responding to these remarks, several United States delegates 
noted that the original negotiations had produced a draft Charter, 
most of whose articles were agreed upon by the United States. United 
States objections had only been raised to specific articles dealing with 
foreign investment and expropriation, primary commodities, producer 
cartels, indexation of prices and similar provisions. It had been the 
hope of the U.S. delegation to the United Nations that amendments 
advanced by some dozen industrialized democracies could have been 
accepted by the Assembly to ensure universal adherence to the 
Charter. Unfortunately, this did not occur. 

In this connection, the United States chairman pointed out that 
there was growing concern among the United States electorate over 
recent moves by foreign governments to expropriate U.S. property 
without pa3'ment of adequate compensation. As a result, Congress 
was unlikely to approve any international agreements which did not 
contain specific guarantees for foreign investment. More was involved 
than the fortunes of large corporations; the economic security of 
thousands of individual shareholders was also at stake. In this regard, 
Mexico was cited as a model of international responsibility, since past 
nationalization actions of the Mexican government had always been 
accompanied by payment of fair compensation. Thus, it was empha- 
sized, U.S. reservations about certain Charter provisions (as finally 
enacted by the General Assembly) was by no means directed at 
Mexico. 

At the request of the Mexican legislators, members of the United 
States delegation participating in Committee II proceedings agreed 
to discuss with the Executive Branch of the United States Govern- 
ment the desirability of implementing those provisions of the Charter 
of Economic Rights and Duties of States which both Governments 
favor. 

Trade, Tourism and the Balance of Payments 

A Mexican delegate underlined the importance of tourism to Mex- 
ico's overall development. Not only did tourism bring in needed 
foreign exchange, but it also generated jobs and facilitated regional 
development. Moreover, income from tourism and border transac- 
tions has financed Mexico's trade deficit to an increasing extent in 
recent y ears. 

In 1975, however, certain negative trends were noted in the flow of 
tourists from the United States, which accounted for 85% of the 
Mexican market. Economic conditions in the United States restricted 
the number of U.S. tourists to Mexico and reduced the average rate 



of disbursement. This downward trend became evident in the second 
half of 1974, when the tourist growth rate began to level off — leading 
to an absolute decline in tourism by early 1975. At the same time, 
travel by Mexicans abroad (95% of which was directed to the United 
States) increased substantially. 

To counteract these trends, Mexico has initiated programs to pro- 
mote domestic tourism and to become competitive in international 
tourism. An attempt has been made to guarantee quality and prices 
in conformance with current market conditions; investment in new 
facilities in the Mexican Caribbean, on the Pacific Coast and in Baja 
California has been increased; and training of personnel has been 
accelerated. Finalh^, a National Fund for the Promotion of Tourism 
was established to provide enterprises with technical and financial 
assistance. 

Several United States delegates observed that Mexico remained a 
country of very considerable interest to American tourists — particu- 
larly from such states as Texas, New Mexico and California. In this 
connection two United States delegates from the state of New Mexico 
stressed the importance of establishing regular flights between Albu- 
querque and Mexico City. While this proposal has received the official 
endorsement of the U.S. Government, approval by the Mexican 
authorities was still pending. These delegates noted that such an air 
link should be of great benefit to Mexico which was the favorite 
foreign destination of travellers from New Mexico. It was hoped that 
progress along this line would be achieved in the current civil aviation 
negotiations on a new agreement to replace the 1973 accord. 

Another United States delegate summarized some of the positive 
and negative factors, which, in the U.S. view, had affected the Mexican 
tourism industry during 1975. Foremost among the latter was the 
economic recession in the United States, which clearly resulted in less 
foreign travel by Americans than would otherwise have been the case. 
Mexico's support of the so-called "Zionism" resolution in the United 
Nations had also had an adverse impact, as had the lack of competi- 
tiveness in air fares between the United States and Mexico in compar- 
ison with other international or national routes. On the other hand, 
Mexico's decision to rescind the 15% restaurant tax for foreign 
visitors had been a most welcome development. 

It was the consensus of both delegations chat serious consideration 
should be given to increasing the current $100 customs exemption for 
returning U.S. residents. This exemption, which compared with an 
approximate exemption of $640 granted by Mexico to its residents 
returning from the United States, had — it was felt — become diluted by 
inflation and should be adjusted upward. Although bills railing for an 
increase hi the U.S. customs exemption had been introduced in the 
Congress, no action had yet been taken by the House Ways and Means 
Committee which had original jurisdiction over such legislation. 

Implementation of the Trade Reform Act of 1974 

General apprehension was conveyed by several Mexican delegates 
over restrictions contained in the 1974 Act which, if strictly imple- 
mented, could serve as an impediment to the economic expansion of 
the developing nations. Particular concern Was expressed over the 
General System of (tariff) Preferences ( GSP) embodied in Title V of 
the act which, it was feared, would apply to only a fraction of Mexican 



10 

exports. Moreover, it was pointed out, the products excepted from the 
GSP system, such as textiles, footwear, electronic parts, steel and glass, 
were those in which Mexico enjoyed competitive manufacturing 
facilities. 

Within this context, members of the Mexican delegation focussed 
special attention on the applicability of certain non-tariff restrictions, 
such as import quotas, affecting many agricultural products of which 
Mexico was the only and chief supplier. Specific reference was made to 
cotton and tomatoes, products which were presently dutiable and 
exports of which were being severely curtailed. The Mexican position 
on this subject, it was pointed out, had been summarized in a diplo- 
matic note presented to the Department of State last November by the 
Mexican Ambassador in Washington to which a response had not yet 
been received. 

Finall} 7 , Mexican delegates who spoke on this topic urged that a more 
precise definition be agreed upon by both governments of the circum- 
stances under which claims of dumping and unfair competition could 
be made and that measures be undertaken to assist Mexico in reducing 
its formidable and mounting trade deficit. 

Responding to these points, a United States delegate noted that 
trade between the two countries was not a one-way street and that the 
impact of Mexico's import protection S3^stem on United States sup- 
pliers was not insignificant. For instance, lemon oil produced in the 
state of California (a product which does not compete with Mexican 
domestic production) as well as fresh and canned deciduous fruits have 
been consistently excluded from the Mexican market. In 1974, more- 
over, American-produced beef, dairy products and quarterhorses were 
subjected to high tariff rates, which were subsequently modified to 
some extent in 1975. 

The Mexican government's licensing system also presented a serious 
obstacle to United States exporters. Under current regulations, all 
agricultural exports from the United States were subject to licensing 
and the importation of consumer goods has been prohibited. In effect, 
this meant that only industrial products, which were not available 
in Mexico, were getting through — often after considerable delay and 
uncertainty which the licensing process inevitably entailed. 

An additional problem for U.S. exporters was the Mexican pricing 
structure — whereby the official price has been set higher than the 
invoice price and resulted in higher de facto tariff rates. In the light of 
all these considerations, this delegate concluded, an easing of import 
restrictions on a wide variety of products, while clearly desirable, 
would have to be effected on a reciprocal basis if it was to receive the 
necessary level of congressional support. 

Other members of the United States delegation emphasized some of 
the advantages afforded by the GSP provisions of the trade act — both 
to Latin America in general and to Mexico in particular. Had GSP 
been in effect in 1974, over one billion dollars of Latin American 
exports to the U.S. would have been eligible for duty free treatment. 
This represented 75% of total exports to the United States as com- 
pared with the 67% of such exports which actually entered the coun- 
try duty-free. In the case of Mexico, over 900 products totalling 500 
million dollars which Mexico exported on a dutiable basis in 1974 
would enter duty free under GSP — in addition to the one billion 
dollars which actually entered without duty that year. Moreover, the 



11 

GSP program provided for a broad expansion of product coverage 
and increased access by Latin American countries to the U.S. market. 
The inclusion of such provisions in the 1974 act was, in fact, a note- 
worthy achievement during a period of abnormally high unemploy- 
ment within the United States. 

Integration and Regional Economic Development 

Mexican efforts to promote a common Latin American economic 
policy were set forth in a paper presented by a Mexican delegate, 
which focussed particular attention on the recent emergence of the 
Latin American Economic System (SELA). SELA, it was pointed out, 
had been a year-long Mexican initiative, leading ultimately to the 
adoption of the organization's Charter on October 17, 1975 by repre- 
sentatives of twenty-three Latin American countries, including Cuba. 
The first formal meeting of SELA had been held in Caracas in Jan- 
uary, 1976 with a second meeting scheduled for April of this year. 

SELA's structure, this delegate emphasized, was intended to be 
"pragmatic and flexible" and to provide a major impetus to regional or 
subregional economic efforts without impairing commitments derived 
from current treaties. SELA's function, he said, was to complement 
and strengthen, not duplicate or displace, existing institutions and 
agreements. An important feature of SELA was its universal compo- 
sition: participation by all Latin American states was, in fact, specifi- 
cally provided for. 

The most significant objectives of SELA were cited as the following : 
To accelerate regional development through the process of 
economic integration; 

To improve cooperation among producer nations in order to 
maintain stable prices of primary commodities; 

To rationalize human, technological and financial resources 
on a regional basis; and 

To fill the urgent need for an exclusively Latin American forum 
in which these common interests may be discussed and to provide 
a better mechanism for collective efforts among Latin American 
nations. 
In the Mexican view, therefore, SELi\ was conceived of as an in- 
stitution of multinational cooperation, not confrontation, and should 
be regarded in that light. 

In reply to these comments, a United States delegate noted that the 
need for regional economic development was by no means limited to 
the nations of Latin America, but also applied to his own state of 
New Mexico. The ultimate goal of any such regional policy, he said, 
was the free movement of goods across national and international 
borders — a policy which, although highly desirable, has proven dif- 
ficult at times to implement. The United States nevertheless recognized 
the importance of this effort and officially favored the concept of 
regional development. An economically strengthened Latin America 
meant a stronger Western Hemisphere — a basic U.S. objective. 

Members of the United States delegation particularly welcomed 
assurances by the Mexican legislators that SELA was designed as a 
mechanism for enhanced cooperation, not divisiveness, among all 
nations of the Hemisphere. 



12 

Migratory workers and illegal aliens 

In opening discussion of this subject, a Mexican delegate recalled 
that the Organization of American States (OAS) at its 10th regular 
meeting held in Mexico Cit}^ in 1974 had adopted the term "non- 
documented migratory worker" as being preferable to the designation 
"illegal immigrant" or "alien". The purpose of that language change, 
he said, was to reaffirm the principle that work — and the attempt to 
earn a livelihood by productive labor — was a fundamental human 
right. Such labor, he pom ted out, was inherently "legal", whereas the 
mamier in which it was carried out was clearly subject to national 
regulation. 

This interpretation received the strong endorsement of all members 
of the United States delegation. Those delegates, representing such 
geographically diverse states as North Carolina, New Mexico and 
California, noted that Mexican workers were highly regarded for their 
willingness and industriousness and that they have made a major 
contribution to the development of the U.S. economy. One United 
States delegate pointed out in this connection that Mexican labor in 
the United States was by no means confined to agriculture, as was 
popularly believed. On the contrary, official statistics confirmed that 
over two-thirds of the migratory work force returning to Mexico from 
the United States had been engaged in now-agricultural pursuits. 

Both delegations took note of the work of the two national com- 
missions which had been established in Mexico and the United States 
to study the undocumented migratory worker problem following the 
October 21, 1974 meeting between President Ford and President Luis 
Echeverria. 

At that meeting, President Echeverria had expressed the view that 
a long-range solution to the problem depended primarily on the 
improvement of economic conditions in Mexico. A Mexican delegate 
pointed out, for instance, that major reasons for Mexican emigration 
were: (1) population pressures within Mexico; (2) relative unpro- 
ductivity of Mexican agricultural land; and (3) higher salaries in the 
United States. Moreover, he noted that such emigration often worked 
to Mexico's disadvantage because it resulted in the loss of the better 
qualified and more productive Mexican workers to industrial centers 
in the United States. 

It was the consensus of the United States delegates who participated 
in the discussion of this topic that while the above observations were 
certainly valid for the longer term, conclusion of a new "Bracero" 
agreement would be desirable in the short term. Such a program, it 
was felt, although admittedly imperfect, was necessary to regularize 
the status of migratory workers and provide some minimal protection 
to those individuals. 

At the same time, advocates of the Bracero program among the 
United States delegation indicated that this view was not present!}^ 
shared by a majority of their colleagues in the Congress. While U.S. 
Congressmen and Senators from agricultural border states favored the 
idea, organized labor remained adamantly opposed. Legislators from 
the industrial North and East reflected that opposition — which was 
also based on a genuine humanitarian concern for the plight of the 
Mexican workers. In the light of these divergent viewpoints, United 
States delegates urged that the Bracero issue be discussed in subse- 
quent meetings between labor representatives of Mexico and the 



13 

United States with a view toward increasing mutual understanding 
of the realities involved. 

Both delegations also expressed the hope that the April meeting of 
the Mexican and United States commissions (referred to above) would 
fully consider the migratory worker problem and arrive at concrete 
recommendations for resolution of same; pending such resolution, both 
delegations expressed the hope that legislatively the status quo would 
be maintained. 

In this regard, reference was made to legislative proposals in the 
United States Congress, such as the Rodino bill, which would impose 
criminal penalties on employers hiring illegal aliens. Although the 
Rodino bill passed the House on two separate occasions, action in the 
Senate has been deferred pending the completion of a study on the 
practical effects of the legislation. 

In the meantime, a United States delegate observed, the United 
States Supreme Court had sustained a California state law similar to 
the Rodino proposal. The overall effect of this ruling, he believed, 
would be to discourage the employment of Mexicans, especially in 
doubtful or borderline cases. 

In conclusion, members of the United States delegation agreed that 
Congressional opponents of the Rodino bill and similar legislation 
were presently in the minority and that a strong effort would have to 
be mounted if that opposition were to prove effective. 

Education, Science, and Culture 

Several Mexican delegates stressed the importance of education in 
improving human, political and social relations among all peoples. In 
the case of neighboring countries like the United States and Mexico 
education in neighborliness should be encouraged in order to promote 
that which unites the two countries and to eliminate that which divides 
them. To that end it was suggested that bilingual education be en- 
couraged; that attention be accorded to the similarity of both coun- 
tries' struggles for freedom; and that the peoples of the two countries 
be informed about one another from the geographic, historic, human 
and artistic standpoints. 

In a broader context, members of the Mexican delegation pointed to 
the establishment of a Third World University which would soon open 
in Mexico City — pursuant to the recommendations of a UNESCO 
declaration. The goals of this institution, they stated, were to: (1) 
contribute to the integral development of man and society; (2) to 
identify problems and suggest viable solutions; (3) to obtain fairer 
terms of trade on the basis of sovereign equality; and (4) to expand 
cooperation among nations in accordance with the Charter of the 
United Nations and the Charter of Economic Rights and Duties of 
State-. 

United States delegates expressed considerable interest in these 
proposals. The United States Chairman observed that one of the 
practical barriers to the educational goals set forth above was lack of 
equal educational opportunity available to many Mexican-Americans. 
For instance, despite a severe doctor shortage in the United States 
(estimated at approximately 50,000 vacancies), degrees from Mexican 
educational institutions — especially schools of medicine and 
dentistry — were still not being recognized in the United States. The 
Chairman urged the Mexican legislators to press for reciprocity in this 



14 

regard. Another United States delegate observed that education is 
also an important vehicle for cultural exchange and pointed out that 
he was sending his own son and daughter to Mexico in the future for 
further study at Mexican educational institutions. 

Both delegations agreed that the exchange of technicians between 
the two countries could be usefully expanded. A Mexican delegate 
observed, for instance, that only eight Mexicans were presently as- 
signed to the United States under this program and only seven Ameri- 
cans were similarly engaged in Mexico; clearly, this number should be 
increased. 

United States delegates cited recent developments in solar energy — 
for the heating of homes in small communities — and in desaliniza- 
tion — to combat a serious water shortage which threatens regions of 
both countries — as examples of fields in which the sharing of tech- 
nology could be of mutual benefit. 

One United States delegate described a specific and current case 
history of water pollution involving the northward flow of sewage 
from Mexicali in Baja California to San Diego, California. While the 
Mexican government has assumed full responsibility for instituting 
corrective action, and had made some initial progress, the problem 
had been exacerbated by the natural increase in the population of the 
Mexicali community. It was suggested, therefore, as in other situations 
of this kind, that the ultimate solution might well be in the form of an 
international project to be undertaken by the International Bound ary 
Commission. 

Finally, the respective Chairmen of the two delegations expressed 
full agreement on the usefulness of the Interparliamentary mechanism 
for increasing mutual understanding of these often complex problems 
and respect for the positions of both countries in international affairs. 

IV. Joint Statement by Heads of Delegations 

At the conclusion of the 16th Mexico-United States Interpar- 
liamentary Conference, the Chairmen of the respective delegations 
agreed on the following. 

declarations 

On the occasion of the United States Bicentennial both delegations 
to the 16th Mexico-United States Interparliamentary Conference 
paid a heartfelt tribute to the Founding Fathers and praised their 
work in support of the principles of freedom, equality and justice 
which are the cornerstones of political life in the United States. 

The delegations committed themselves to working for a better 
understanding between the peoples whom they represent, with the 
aim of overcoming any obstacle which might detract from the respect- 
ful and cordial relations which exist between the United States and 
Mexico. 

In reiterating their confidence in the usefulness of the Interpar- 
liamentary Meetings, they agreed to designate two joint committees, 
one to draft a summary report of the 16 meetings which have been 
held, and another to draw up a document which will include some 
concrete proposals to be presented to Presidents Ford and Echeverria, 
who have expressed their interest in the work of the Conference and 
in proposals adopted by both delegations. 



15 

Views on the United Nations 

The United Nations is an important instrument for the preservation 
of peace and the establishment of a new economic order. 

The United Nations Committee entrusted with reviewing that 
organization's Charter should suggest measures to strengthen it, if 
such action is required in order to achieve the organization's objectives. 

The heads of the delegations reiterated their support for the prin- 
ciple of the territorial integrity of all nations and non-intervention 
in the political affairs of other states. 

Organization of American States 

The Organization of American States continues to be the most 
important forum for exchanging views among all the states of the 
Western Hemisphere. 

Members of the OAS should make a concerted effort to adapt the 
Organization to the political requirements of our time. 

The OAS should be a more effective instrument for solidarity and 
cooperation among all the countries of the Hemisphere. 

Narcotics 

The issue of illicit narcotics is a problem multilateral in nature and 
concerns the entire community of nations. 

Both delegations expressed satisfaction as to the measures and 
efforts adopted and undertaken in their respective countries to 
suppress the production, traffic and use of illicit drugs. 

The United States delegation expressed its gratitude for the efforts 
undertaken by the government and the people of Mexico in their 
war on narcotics traffic. 

Both delegations indicated their approval of President Echever- 
ria's proposal to create twin commissions in Mexico and the United 
States to coordinate and intensify efforts with respect to the elimi- 
nation of the drug problem. 

Recommendation was made that both delegations consider the 
establishment of a standing legislative committee to review progress 
on this issue during the interim period between Interparliamentary 
Meetings. 

The Mexican delegation expressed its concern about the fact 
that some states in the United States no longer penalize the con- 
sumption of marijuana, even though these states continue to prohibit 
the sale of it. 

Law oj the Sea 

There should be a redoubling of efforts to reach agreement on all 
outstanding Law of the Sea issues. 

Coastal states have a right to protect maritime resources close 
to their coasts, as recognized by legislative measures recently 
approved by both Mexico and the United States, respectively. 

The community of nations is approaching a consensus on the issue 
of exclusive economic zones. 

Protection of Human Rights 

The subject of "Protection of Human Rights" was covered 
thoroughly. The delegates exchanged views on the treatment afforded 
their fellow citizens and reiterated their faith in the Universal Declara- 
tion of Human Rights. 



16 

In referring to Americans subject to trial in Mexico and to Mexican 
migratory workers in the United States, the delegates presented 
detailed explanations of these issues and proposed that recommenda- 
tions be made that their governments make every effort to guarantee 
that the human rights of all are fully protected. 

Democracy in the Western Hemisphere 

Both delegations agreed that democracy and the functioning of 
democratic institutions are the best social and political means to 
guarantee the freedom and rights of man, since they constitute the 
most effective way to halt the advance of totalitarianism. 

Similarly, both delegations expressed their firm hope for the re- 
establishment of representative democracy and democratic institu- 
tions in those countries where they have been suppressed. 

Desalinization Plant 

Renewed interest was expressed in the construction of a nuclear 
desalinization plant in Baja, California. Both governments should 
move ahead with this project as soon as they are satisfied that all 
technical difficulties can be eliminated. The construction of such a 
plant will be of great benefit to both countries. 

Inflation and Development 

The Mexican and United States delegations expressed their joint 
concern over the worldwide effects of inflation and agreed that this 
problem can only be solved in a multilateral framework. 

The industrialized and underdeveloped countries have a common 
interest in promoting and expanding international trade and in 
removing, to the extent possible, the barriers which presently exist 
to the free movement of goods and agricultural products across 
national boundaries. An important goal in this respect is to insure fair 
and stable prices for manufactured goods and for raw materials 
produced by the developing nations. 

The legislators of both countries agreed on the desirability of in- 
creasing the flow of U.S. investment to Mexico, which is consistent 
with Mexican law. The American delegates emphasized that past 
nationalization actions of the Mexican Government had always been 
accompanied by payment of fair compensation. Mexico, in the U.S. 
view, serves as a model of international responsibilit}' in this regard. 

At the request of the Mexican legislators, members of the United 
States delegation agreed to discuss with the Executive Branch of the 
United States Government the desirability of implementing those 
provisions of the Charter of Economic Rights and Duties of States 
which both governments favor. 

Commerce, Tourism and Balance of Payments 

Both delegations agreed that a liberalization of the two countries' 
bilateral trade policies, in accordance with the principle of reciprocity, 
was clearly desirable. The United States delegates, in particular, 
acknowledged the need to take Mexican economic interests fully into 
account in the implementation of the U.S. Trade Reform Act of 1974. 
The Mexican delegation urged favorable trade consideration be 
accorded Mexico in the light of Mexico's trade deficit and geographical 
location. The Mexican delegation noted that preferential treatment 
for neighboring countries has been accepted in principle by the GATT 
(General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade). 



17 

Generalized System of Preferences 

The United States delegation accorded sympathetic consideration to 
the concerns expressed by the Mexican delegation over certain pro- 
visions of the Trade Reform Act. While cognizant of these concerns 
and apprehensions on the part of Latin American governments the 
U.S. delegates noted that the benefits of GSP to Mexico were not 
inconsiderable. The U.S. delegates also pointed out that to date the 
Trade Act's "escape-clause" provisions (including anti-dumping 
measures and countervailing duties) had rarely been invoked and 
expressed the hope that recourse to such measures in the future would 
be minimal. 

Regional Integration 

The American legislators were entirely sympathetic to efforts of 
Latin American countries to promote regional economic integration, 
such as the Latin American Economic System (SELA). The U.S. 
delegates accepted Mexican legislators' assurances that such efforts 
were designed to promote international cooperation, not confrontation, 
and noted that official U.S. polic}^ favors the concept. 

Undocumented Migratory Workers 

In an attempt to emphasize their fundamental belief that work and 
the desire to obtain work is an inalienable human right and legitimate 
human aspiration, both delegations agreed that the term "undoc- 
umented worker" is preferable to that of "illegal immigrant." Both 
delegations recognized the need for providing protection to Mexican 
workers in the United States and for insuring that they receive equal 
treatment under the law. 

While both delegations recognized that in long-range terms, eco- 
nomic progress within Mexico will be a key to the resolution of the 
migrator worker problem — as enunciated on several occasions by 
President Luis Echeverria — several U.S. delegates expressed the view 
that conclusion of a new "Bracero" program would be desirable in the 
short term. Such a program, although imperfect, would be preferable 
for both countries, it was felt, than the non-regulated situation which 
now prevails. 

In this connection, the U.S. legislators noted the opposition of 
organized labor in the United States to such a program and urged 
that this problem be discussed in subsequent meetings between labor 
representatives of Mexico and the United States. 

Both delegations expressed the hope that the forthcoming April 
meeting to be assembled by the governments of the respective countries 
of the United States and Mexico would fully consider the problem and 
arrive at concrete recommendations for the resolution of same and that 
pending such resolution, it was the hope that legislatively the status 
quo should be maintained. 

Education, Science and Culture 

The Interparliamentary delegations recognize the universal char- 
acter of education, science and culture and believe that they are the 
best means to guarantee the improvement of human, political and 
social relations among all peoples. They consider, likewise, that to be 
relevant to the requirements of our time, education should include 
the study of such concepts as democracy, freedom, independence and 
social justice. The delegations believe that in the case of neighboring 



18 

countries, specifically Mexico and the United States of America, 
education in neighboiiiness should be provided in order to promote 
that which unites us and to eliminate that which divides us. To that 
end, they suggest that bilingual education be encouraged; that 
attention be accorded to the similarity of our struggles for freedom; 
and that the peoples of our respective countries be informed about one 
another from the geographic, historic, human and artistic standpoints. 

The delegations of both countries believe that the bulwark of peace 
is the mind of man. The Mexican delegation, citing a UNESCO 
declaration, indicated that the time had come to promote the estab- 
lishment of international institutions of education, such as the Third 
World University, which will soon open in Mexico. The goals of such 
institutions, they pointed out, are: (1) to contribute to the integral 
development of man and society; (2) to identify problems and suggest 
viable solutions; (3) to obtain fairer terms of trade on the basis of 
sovereign equality; and (4) to expand cooperation among nations in 
accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and the Charter of 
Economic Rights and Duties of States. 

The United States delegates expressed considerable interest in this 
proposal and promised to give it very serious consideration. 



APPENDIXES 



Appendix A 



Welcoming Statement by the Honorable George Busbee. 
Governor of Georgia, 16th Mexico-United States Inter- 
parliamentary Conference, Atlanta, Ga. 

Senator Mansfield, Senator Olivares Santana and distinguished 
members of the Mexico-United States Interparliamentary Conference. 

I appreciate your invitation and am pleased to be able to be with 
you this morning. On behalf of all Georgians, I would like to welcome 
you to our beautiful State, and particular^ to the great city of Atlanta. 

Since the establishment of the Conference in 1960, your annual 
meetings have been held in many fine cities. It is especially fitting that 
you have chosen Atlanta, Georgia, for this 1976 meeting. 

Atlanta is rapidly gaining worldwide recognition as a center for 
foreign exchange in the areas of government, commerce, banking and 
culture. 

In less than six months, the world spotlight will be directed to the 
very heart of this city with the opening of the Georgia World Congress 
Center which will combine exhibition space, meeting rooms, simul- 
taneous translation facilities, food service, and international telephone 
service in one single building. 

There is nothing else like it in the world, and I sincerely hope you 
will have an opportunity to return to Atlanta after its opening for 
similar foreign exchanges. 

The World Congress Center is just one of the exciting developments 
going on in Atlanta at the present time but one of which I am most 
proud. 

In readying ourselves for the future we have tried to mold a city 
and a State which are both accessible to, and capable of providing 
services for, a wide spectrum of business, industry and government 
throughout the world. 

As chief executive of this State I am keenly interested in quality 
education, and the economic development of Georgia. 

Through our statewide international efforts, we have been able to 
develop an extensive network of worldwide governmental, industry and 
business contracts. 

Georgia is one of the few States in the country with as many as four 
overseas offices. They are located in Brussels, Belgium; Tokyo, Japan; 
Sao Paulo, Brazil; and Toronto, Canada. 

During my first year in office, I conducted three trade missions over- 
seas—going to Western Europe, the Far East, and Mexico. 

While in Mexico last April, I was privileged to meet with Emilio 
Rabasa, Minister of Foreign Relations. We toured the outstanding 

(19) 



20 

Mexican Institute of Foreign Trade Exhibition which had a most 
impressive array of quality Mexican products. We also talked ex- 
tensively of the possibilities of opening a Mexican office in Georgia. 

I am happy to report that as a result of this very successful trade 
mission to Mexico, we now boast a fulltime Mexican Consulate in 
Georgia headed by Consul Alexander Hungler. The addition of the 
Mexican Consulate brings the number of fulltime consulates in Georgia 
to eight in addition to the 30 honorary consuls who are also here. 

To round out Georgia's excellent potential for international growth 
and exchange we also have — 

One of the most aggressive and active Ports Authorities in the coun- 
try ; and 

We are now in the process of establishing the state's first Foreign 
Trade Zone. 

Altogether there are presently more than 180 international firms in 
operation in Georgia — emplo}dng 15,000 people — with a total of $160 
million in investments in manufacturing facilities, and over $136 
million in non-manufacturing foreign real estate acquisitions. 

The importance of the trade missions, however, has reached far 
be}^ond merely being part of an aggressive economic development 
program. 

They have been a most beneficial learning experience for me as 
Governor. 

I have learned how international business leaders view my state and 
region from an economic and growth standpoint, and I am proud to 
note their conclusions are most positive. 

I have also learned first hand of the close interrelationships which 
exist among the nations of the world. We are indeed an international 
community, and this neighborhood will grow closer through the 
coming years. 

We in Georgia are proud of our worldwide friendships, and especially 
of our relationship with Mexico. 

As neighbors in the Western Hemisphere, we have a great oppor- 
tunity to work together to find solutions to our long range needs and 
the immediate problems we share. 

Our scales of observation will necessaruV differ — my perspective is 
as a governor representing 4% million people. You are senators and 
congressmen representing specific constituencies, and in the capacity 
of this Conference, you represent your nation's government. 

Our individual goals are the same — to insure the best for our people, 
and to strive for world peace. 

The goals of this Conference are to discuss common problems in the 
interests of relations between the United States and Mexico, and to 
foster a closer relationship among the peoples of our lands. 

All of these goals are directly related to the degree of understanding 
which exists among our citizens: 

We share much in common, and we have a great deal to learn from, 
and with, each other. We have come to live our lives together, and the 
success of our personal futures, and the future of our countries are 
intertwined. 

I applaud you for your work on this Conference. Your responsibil- 
ity is great, and the issues you deal with are extremely important, and 
some are controversial. 



21 

But you are here to work for the common good of our citizens, and to 
provide insight to our respective countries on policies and trends 
which dramatically affect our future. 

Thank you for this opportunity to meet with you. Come back and 
visit us again soon, and best wishes for a successful meeting. 



Appendix B 
Opening Plenary Statement by Hon. E. (Kika) de la Garza 1 

Governor Busbee, our very distinguished colleagues — the delegates 
from Mexico, my colleagues of the U.S. House and Senate, dis- 
tinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen: 

It is my great honor and distinct privilege to welcome you to the 
opening plenary session of the 16th Mexico-United States Inter- 
parliamentaiy Conference. 

1976, as you know, is a veiy special year for us in the United States. 
It is a year in which we celebrate the 200th anniversary of our In- 
dependence — Yes, this is a very special birthday for our country. 
We want to make it also a very special }*ear for our Mexican guests 
and for our conference. 

Once again, as we initiate our labors, we have a full and challenging 
agenda of topics to discuss, both of a bilateral and multilateral na- 
ture. Some issues we have dealt with before; others are new. All, I 
believe, are of impoitance to our relations as friends and neighbors, 
hence merit — and I am sure will receive — our best efforts. 

We note that our deliberations have now transcended from purely 
bilateral issues and problems to those which are not limited to us, 
but go beyond our two countries and even our hemisphere. We will 
be discussing, and I think very appropiiately so in this our bicen- 
tennial, the direction and development of democracy and democratic 
institutions in the Western Hemisphere. 

It is with some degree of pride that I mention that here in these 
United States of America was born that novel experiment of liberty, 
of freedom and dignity for the individual, of equality and justice 
under the law, of government by the consent of the governed. It is 
not perfect, it has its failings — realh' not of the system but of the 
people — for when you deal with humans, there is always the ca- 
pacity to err. But it is well to remind ourselves and our friends that 
Washington and Jefferson and Madison, Franklin, and Mason gave 
us a simple piece of paper, the Declaration of Independence, followed 
by a Bill of Rights and a Constitution * * *. And now 200 years later, 
I think even beyond their dearest wish or expectation, here we are 
with the same Bill of Rights, the same Constitution — amended, yes, 

1 Mr. de la Garza's remarks were delivered In Spanish, and lose some of their original 
flavor in this rather free translation. 



22 

but done so in a manner the document itself suggests. I think it 
would be well to remember, and I do so in honor of our Mexican 
colleagues, that the same yearning for independence, that same spark 
that would light the fires of freedom, had been ignited in the hearts of 
noble people in what are now Mexico and other countries of the 
Western Hemisphere * * *. And it was not long after Washington 
and Philadelphia that we heard "El Grito de Dolores", and the world 
knew of Hidalgo and the man} T other Mexican patriots, including 
Dona Josefa Ortiz de Dominguez. 

It is well to remember that many of our ancestors and mam r of our 
states, including my own state of Texas — and even part of }^ours, 
Senator Mansfield — were not a part of the cry for independence of 
Philadelphia, but rather of "El Grito de Dolores", for all the lands 
west of the Mississippi were a part of New Spain. 

Fate, divergence of opinion amongst people, and eventually war 
made us a part of the United States of America, but many of us never 
stopped being brothers with our neighbors to the south; and I want 
my Mexican colleagues to carry this message back to your people: 
We are your brothers, we are your friends — many times misunder- 
stood — but even then we remain dedicated to that initial link of 
brotherhood. 

I do not think it is necessary to recall facts, but history bears this 
out: Neither you nor the rest of the world need fear any yearning of 
our people for power or domain. All one needs to do is look around — 
look at Germany and Japan; we conquered them both after a great 
war. They signed unconditional surrender, but now they are our com- 
petitors in the markets of the world. Yes, we make mistakes (I told 
you of the human capacity to err) , but the American people have this 
great power to reconciliation, for sometimes the failings are of the 
government and not necessarily of the people. We invaded your 
country, our ships landed troops upon your shores * * * and not too 
many years later, one of our mightiest aircraft carriers was at Tampico 
after a hurricane * * * landing troops, yes, but to save lives of your 
countrymen, our brothers. In the border country where I come from, 
we live as brothers — we do so daily, perhaps because we are so far 
from Washington and Mexico City. 

The language, the customs, the culture, the architecture, the music, 
the names — all remain, and we acknowledge them with pride. Many 
of our public institutions and private businesses fly the American 
flag, the Texas flag, and the Mexican flag side by side — this in the 
United States of America, yes, in the United States of America, so 
often chastised for having no concern for others, or their institutions. 

But let me turn for a few brief moments to what we do here * * *. 
It is with some degree of sadness that I attend this conference, for I 
know it will be the last for many of our Mexican colleagues who finish 
their terms of office this year. We have worked together, we have 
become personal friends * * *. Yes, we have made friendships that 
will last for many years, but let us look at what we have accomplished 
in these sixteen years, look at the items that will not be discussed. That, 
I think, should be our greatest tribute, for it has been at these confer- 
ences that we have hammered out in theory and in principle what our 
executive branches have later incorporated into treaties and protocols — 
Chamizal, El Rio Colorado to name but two. We have worked side 
by side, as friends and neighbors, and we have achieved. So now let 
us look to the future, let us continue. There will be others who will 



23 

come, as others came before you, but these years in which this group 
has worked together have been fruitful years, both personally and for 
our two countries. We have made both of our countries better places 
in which to live; we have learned about our respective peoples; we 
have discussed our differences and carried forward our agreements. 

Yes, both you, rny Mexican colleagues, and we have carried the 
banners of our countries high — with respect, and dignity, and love. 
We salute you. 

I would like to close with a special tribute to the Mexican people 
via a personal anecdote: It was during hurricane Beulah in 1967. 
The great floods which came after the storm inundated many com- 
munities on both sides of the river. Our military came into the area 
and assisted all who needed help. There was no border — all were 
taken to high ground regardless of which side of the river they in- 
habited. Almost all of the city of Camargo, on the Mexican side, was 
under water; so all of the people were brought to our side, to Rio 
Grande City and Roma. They were taken to schools, churches, 
private homes — wherever they could be cared for. Governor John 
Connally came down; then President Lyndon B. Johnson arrived. 
I had been there all the time. As we were going through a school 
where the people were being cared for and fed, I was translating for 
President Johnson as he spoke to the people from Mexico * * *. 

We reached a family which, I could tell, was of very humble economic 
resources. President Johnson asked the lady how they were being 
cared for, and she replied "real well" ; and he asked about her children, 
were they being fed? — and she replied "yes, thank you." I then 
asked her if she knew who this man was, and she said no * * *. I told 
her he was the President of the United States, and immediately 
she stood up and stood her children up. President Johnson then told 
her: "I am a very good friend of your President Diaz Ordaz." Tins 
very humble Mexican woman, with her arms around her children, 
told me: "Please tell the President that in the name of our President, 
Don Gustavo Diaz Ordaz and of all our countrymen here, I give 
him thanks and that if God permits him some day to come to Camargo, 
he has there a humble home." 

It is in that spirit, my colleagues, that I say to you: We cannot 
change the past, but we and this conference have enhanced the present, 
both for our two countries and for the world, and there is no limit to 
what can be accomplished in the future. It may be by others, but 
we have paved the way. So in this 16th session, let us leave an in- 
delible mark, enabling us to respond with pride to those who would 
ask what has been done: "Look around you" * * * A better world, a 
better Mexico, a better United States — and that we have achieved 
this as brothers * * * that shall be our monument! 



Appendix C 

Remarks by Senator Mike Mansfield at the Closing Plenary 
Session XVI, Mexico-United States Interparliamentary 
Conference, Atlanta, Ga. 

Senator Olivares, Deputy Rodriguez, Congressman de la Garza, 
fellow Delegates, Ladies and Gentlemen : 

I want to take this opportunity to thank Governor and Mrs. Busbee 



24 

for the many courtesies they have extended to us. We particularly 
appreciate Governor Busbee taking time out of his busy schedule to 
be with us during the opening plenaiy session of the Conference. 

Similarly, I want to thank Mayor Jackson and his office for their 
help and assistance here in Atlanta. 



The City of Atlanta. The modernity of this City almost belies its 
historical antecedents, and yet, there is a marvelous balance between 
the old and the new; Atlanta sports a traditional elegance that few 
cities can match — but combined with a functionalism that belongs 
to the 21st Century. 

Atlanta has learned to live with itself: it jealously protects its rich 
Southern heritage. It thoroughly enjoys the present. And it realistically 
plans for the future. 

The people of Atlanta, we salute you. And we thank you for making 
our stay here a very enjoyable one. 

Southern hospitality is alive and well. And its hometown is Atlanta. 



At this point, Ladies and Gentlemen, let me assure you that I will 
not follow in the footsteps of the O. Henry character who professed 
he had nothing to say and then proceeded to "* * * talk till the sun 
went down and the chickens went to roost." I will be brief. 

I have had the honor of speaking at many of these closing sessions 
and I appreciate the opportunity to do so once again. 

Because of the timing of this year's conference, I want to thank 
Senator Olivares, Deputy Rodriguez and the entire Mexican delega- 
tion for their cooperation and help in holding our meeting earlier in 
the year than is customary. It is the kind of cooperation and help 
that we have come to expect from each other; it is the kind of coopera- 
tion and help that stands as a lasting tribute to our annual meetings; 
and it is the kind of cooperation and help that contributes to greater 
understanding and to strengthening the bonds of friendship between 
our countries. Indeed, it is the kind of cooperation and help that 
diplomats dream of and poets write about. 

We have forged this relationship in just sixteen short years and we 
have established a record of which all of us can be justifiably proud. 

It is a record which has stood and will continue to stand the test 
of time; it is a record established not of necessity, but of desire — a 
desire to learn, to understand, to speak to each other with respect for 
our differences and appreciation for our similarities. 

Respect and appreciation — they have served as the guiding hand 
for our meetings — and they have served well. This year we ploughed 
through an agenda comprised of thirteen major items, ranging from 
the United Nations to migratory workers; from law of the sea to the 
Trade Reform Act; from efforts to deal with the flow of narcotic drugs 
to integration and regional economic development. 

We did not subject each topic to exhaustive debate or tedious 
examination. Nor did we attempt to negotiate our differences. Bather, 
we have listened and learned. We have gained new insights. We have 
broadened our horizons. And despite our differences, or perhaps be- 
cause of them, all of us are better for having been here. 



25 

We may not see eye to eye on the United Nations issue, for ex- 
ample, but all of us believe in the need for such an organization and 
the rule of international law. 

We may have different views on the law of the sea, but all of us 
believe in the need for an international agreement that will prevent 
the mindless exploitation of the seas and will serve to benefit all 
mankind. 

We may not agree on the specific details designed to implement the 
Trade Act of 1974, but we all agree on the need to expand interna- 
tional trade and improve the economic well-being of all nations. 

Our objectives are the same. Our approaches are quite often differ- 
ent. This is as it should be, because each nation defines its own self- 
interests — and therein lies the opportunity for cooperation. 

Mexico and the United States have seized this opportunity' on many 
occasions. Such opportunities culminated, for example, in the Chamizal 
Settlement of 1971 and the Colorado River Salinity Agreement of 1973. 
They are proud testament to the shared desire that our actions match 
our words. And indeed the} 7 have. 

Fellow delegates and distinguished guests : Let me close on a sort of 
bicentennial note. 

About 200 years ago, March 23, 1775, to be precise, Patrick Henry 
was moved to say, "I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, 
and that is the lamp of experience. I know no way of judging the 
future but by the past." 

If Patrick Henry was right, and I think it is fair to say that he was 
right about a lot of things, then the experience we have gathered 
during the past sixteen years casts a bright and illuminating future 
for the next sixteen. 

Appendix D 

FINANCIAL STATEMENT 

At the time of the filing of this report, the estimated total of the 
Senate delegation's official expenses for the 16th Mexico-United 
States Interparli amen tar}- Conference came to approximately $20,000. 
A consolidated report showing all expenditures of the delegation at 
the conference will be filed later with the Senate in accordance with law. 

o 



UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 

3 1262 09113 1622